The Iraq thread 3

[ran 0]

hmm .. dear dear mods .... can you get the location and address of forum members ? I'd be interested in any interesting information about the JP226 individual, I can offer correct rewards for any help on tracking him down finding his IP and then finding his living place .......

natrually, rest assured that your name won't appear in any federal criminal enquiry ......

[booradley60 0]

Didn't Tex post the same thing a long time ago?  I don't think anyone should take that post seriously, it gives the ignorant a sense of credibility.

[ran 0]

Didn't Tex post the same thing a long time ago? I don't think anyone should take that post seriously, it gives the ignorant a sense of credibility.

i don't take it seriously, but it's getting lame .......

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Didn't Tex post the same thing a long time ago?  I don't think anyone should take that post seriously, it gives the ignorant a sense of credibility.

Yes, I did. Over a year ago.

[toadeater 0]

Mine show only crooks from Texas and religious fanatics support him.

Would you like to tell us where you got these figures from?

It's just common sense. Why would anyone else support him? They'd have to be mad.

Obviously I was being facetious, I know other people support him, but they don't know any better.

Bush is a crook, he serves the interests of corporations before that of people. History will show this to the world. Mark my words, as soon as Kerry is elected president in November, all of Bush-Cheney's secrets and double-dealing are going to come spilling out.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/08/oneill.documents/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BOCA RATON, Florida (CNN) -- Treasury Secretary John Snow said Sunday that his predecessor, Paul O'Neill, did nothing wrong when he used departmental documents as source material for a book that cast President Bush in an unflattering light.

An investigation showed that some of those documents were classified and should not have been released to O'Neill, Treasury Department sources have told CNN.

"I should make it clear that nothing that former Secretary O'Neill did in any way calls into question the propriety of his actions," Snow said in an interview with CNN at the conclusion of a meeting of G-7 finance ministers.

The investigation by the department's inspector general found that though O'Neill did receive classified material from the department after his resignation, the lapse was the fault of the Treasury Department, not O'Neill, the sources said.

In a letter sent to members of Congress on Friday, Snow said the documents "were not properly reviewed before their release" and that "we are taking corrective action concerning those documents," according to sources.

Snow said Sunday that O'Neill "no longer possesses the documents, as far as I understand."

[miles teg 1]

I wonder if 60 Minutes (the news show) still has copies of those documents. They showed them on TV but I noticed that their web version cut out all the parts showing the pictures of how the Bush administration was going to carve up Iraq's oil fields amongst different US Oil corporations.

It was a DAMN SMOKING GUN!!!!!!

It was EVIDENCE that the Bush administration flat out lied about the reasons for invading, yet NOBODY IS REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS!!!!!!!!

I'm SO INCREDIBLY disappointed in the democratic party here in the United States because they have entirely dropped the ball on nailing the president on these issues. They should be screaming bloody murder and going to the courts to get access to those documents.

I imagine CBS, from pressure from the Bush administration, probably gave those documents back as they tend to be very conservative and generally support the Bush administration.

So if O'neill no longer has these documents then I wonder who does.

This whole thing makes me sick. The Democratic party seems in complete disarray from my point of view as they've quietly allowed for internet voting (incredibly vulnerable to manipulation) and electronic voting (which again can be manipulated). These are things that can attack the basic foundations of American democracy which is the right for voters to choose who they want in office and who they don't want. These vulnerable electronic voting systems could change that. I see all these things and the actions of the country that I love and I can't help but feel that it is the beginning of the end for America as a major power in this world.

For me its incredibly sad because the dream of America is a noble one and one I believe in... freedom & liberty. The freedom to live free of religious persecution, free of tyranny,

Two simple words that have been so horribly distorted and used to justify so much harm and hatred in the world.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[bn880 5]

Personally I think they should crank the pressure up in the last weeks of elections, just like Bush is going to do. It is not just expectation but fact that whoever looks better in the end gets the votes. People have a nincredibly short memory in North America in general, perhaps it comes from whats "cool" these days like action movies,games etc... lol

[miles teg 1]

Good point.  I sincerely hope that these issues I spoke of are REALLY hammered into Bush in the last weeks before the election in one huge media blitz.  

If not then the democrats I think will be miserable failures in the face of the Republican spin masters who are indeed masters of their craft of manipulating public perception.

Watching the latest Bush interview I was impressed how Bush was able to spin Kay's reports on the lack of WMD's in Iraq.

He basically spun it saying Kay fully supported the invasion and supports the occupation of Iraq because according to Bush, Kay said that in many ways Saddam's regime was far more dangerous then we ever imagined.    Of coarse he didn't go into details because its the details that kill Bush because when you start carefully analyzing Bush's broad statements and start to look at what they are based upon, you quickly find that he is terribly distorting things or flat out lying.

But Americans do indeed have short attention spans and also do not like lengthy explanations.  Americans like sound bites...nice 10-30 second answers that get at people's emotions rather then logic because many Americans just hate thinking (including many of my fellow democrats).  

So the "Saddam was a madman and we kicked his ass out of Iraq" methods of arguement work really well for him and is very acceptable to most Americans.   Same for his economic policies where he can simply say, "Cutting taxes promotes economic growth and more jobs."

Americans hear that and think, "That sounds great to me. I hate paying taxes and I like having more jobs. Bush is a wise man because he gives me MY money back. MY MONEY!!!" Most Americans think this way without looking at all the other issues involved in tax cuts and the details surrounding the types of jobs that are currently growing.  

If you look at the details you find more service industry, low paying jobs growing, but many losses in many fields with high paying jobs.  

The Republican Party does not seem to be focused on this as they are looking at short term economic goals rather then the long term reprecussions of this trend if it continues.  Eventually if you lack a strong middle class, you simply won't have a market for many commodities unless they are replaced by overseas markets.  But even then, you still are left with a weaker economy that is dependent mostly on overseas markets. So overall we will have a much larger, poorer and vastly more pissed off lower class that will vent their frustrations and who will cause great political instability if groups organize and become violent.

In short I see the Republican party piece by piece disassembling the fantastic achievements made by FDR in building a strong country using sensible government regulation of industry, many public works projects, and founding the Social Security system as well as other social services.

Before him an earlier Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt) also was pioneering by being the first President to support organized labor during strikes and to pass regulations to prevent gross abuses of capitalism and to protect our enviornment and preserve are beautiful natural treasures that America is blessed with.  

All these marvelous achievements that helped make America what it is today, I now see being ripped apart in the guise of patriotism and deep hatred for anything that even smells like socialism even though the hatred is based upon emotions (mainly greed) rather then logic.   I run into many Americans who happily will pay taxes for military spending, but who are up in arms at being forced to pay social security taxes.  They do NOT believe they should have to give their hard earned money to the government because they think that private industry or faith based organizations (which can also bring JESUS to the masses) can do a better job despite studies showing the complete opposite.  

It's just mind-blowing to me how ignorant and stubborn people are even in the face of hard data (based on well done research) that contradicts what their beliefs.  

 

It is these types of people that you find amongst Islamic extremists.   Some of these extremists you can sit and point out sections of the Qu'ran that clearly contradict their beliefs, and yet they will just ignore it and shrug it off saying that "such liberal interpretations of the Qu'ran are wrong."

Then of coarse they will usually refuse to state why they are wrong or come up with any evidence except by using some of the extreme Hadith's that may have nothing to do with that part of the Qu'ran.  

That is why I say that this war on terror, is a war between conservatives...  it is a war between extremists in the West (Neo-Conservatives) and in the Middle East (Islamic militants).

So because of this, I see Bush and his administration as being INCREDIBLY dangerous as he reacts to attacks in the same manner as the Islamic militants... with massive force that ends up killing innocent people and thus justifying further and even MORE brutal terrorism in the eyes of Islamic extremists.  

An eye for an eye... as they say in the Middle East.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[EiZei 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin....on.html

Quote[/b] ]

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

WTH?

[miles teg 1]

Following up on the Pakistan (handwashing) issue, Kofi Annan finds it odd that Pakistan pardons it's top scientists for leaking Nuclear  secrets.  Annan for world leader!  

EDIT: a linker  le story

I also have incredibly great respect for Kofi Anan. He takes a lot of crap from both sides of issues but he's one of the wisest, most diplomatic leaders that I've seen on the world stage for quite a long time.

His greatest point I think is that he can see and argue both sides of an issue very very well. He also has an incredible amount of patience... something I wish more world leaders would show. At any rate, I think Kofi's a good human being.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

since you guys like to do nothing but bash Bush. Which Bush represents the American will or atleast 2/3rds of the public which pretty much is most Americans.

Whoa there Seabiscuit!

Bush's approval has been dropping like a rock. On one recent poll, if the election had been held last Friday, Kerry would have beaten Bush. *pray hope pray*

An interesting story was on 60 minutes last night about the Evangelical Church. Guess what the TBA is?

You see the part where they showed Bush's Republican debate? When asked "What politcal thinker has most influenced you?" Bush's answer was:

"Christ."

HELLO?!

Bush's main source of support is in the Evangelical Church, where some 40%, yes that is right FORTY PERCENT (according to 60 Minutes' numbers) came from Evangelical Church members.

Bush does not have a vast majority of American support, just the support of Americans who are vocal, vote, and have a very strong lobby.

And let me tell you he does NOT represent "the American will."

[miles teg 1]

Regarding JP226's behavior.  It is typical of the behavior of many of conservatives.   Because they can not win a debate with factual information, they instead resort to using emotional tactics to incite people's anger and to characterize their political opponents as naive hypocrits by bringing up issues of the past that have little or nothing to do with the present issues.   For example he criticizes France despite the fact that a very LARGE miniority here in America oppose his views and those of the Bush administration.  

He calls it "Bush bashing" as if nobody ever did that to Clinton, the so called "Flaming Liberal" and the pinnacle of liberal ideology (even though actually Clinton's policies showed him to be fairly conservative on many issues).

So basically in political debate, you can tell when someone has run out of intelligent arguements when they start doing nothing but insulting their opponent and trying to tear apart their opponent's character.

The biggest problem is that conservatives identify themselves with Bush.  When their identity is tied to Bush, attacks upon Bush are attacks on their core beliefs.  Do no matter how logical the arguements against the Bush administration are, it is difficult to get them to disassociate those strong emotional and ideological ties from the Bush administration.  

I seriously doubt JP226 even bothered to read any of my long posts as it probably required to much thinking for him or because he just categorized it all as "liberal crap" without really giving any of it much thought.  

When dealing with conservatives like him its best to attack Bush on a level they can understand... ex-  Bush creating an even bigger government (lying about his promises at reducing big government).   This growth is mostly outside the Office of Homeland Security also.  

No evidence also has yet to emerge that Bush didn't go AWOL during the Vietnam War... and act with severe consequences during a time of war and that should have put him back on the draft.  So far all the evidence shows that he did go AWOL.

These are issues and other issues should be issues that conservatives should be VERY concerned about as well as with the issue of short term vs. long term economic growth and whether Bush's strategy is truly the right one (cutting taxes).  

Another issue conservatives need to be very worried about with Bush is education.   If they are employers in a industry that requires semi-skilled or skilled labor, it is getting much more difficult to find skilled labor here in America.  So they either have to recruit people from other countries or simply move parts of their company or busieness to other countries or just outsource that labor to sub-contractors in other countries.   These are $$ leaving the country and our economy.   These are less AMERICAN jobs.

Then of coarse there is the Patriot Act.  Most conservatives I know are all about freedom, and so much of the Patriot Act should deeply worry them as some of the laws do directly attack the Constitution of the United States of America which is the FOUNDATION of America.  If they consider themselves true patriots, then they should be EXTREMELY worried about this and about a overzealous "Big Brother" type of government developing.  Just recently a Federal Court ordered a University to hand over a list of people who attended an Anti-War rally just recently.... the first time such an order had been issued since the 50's during the McCarthy "Red Scare" era.    No criminal reasons were given for the subpoena of this information.  It was purely for "intelligence information" on possible "enemies of the state".    

On the other hand one federal court just found part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional (about it being a crime to give ANY advice to terrorist organizations).  This was challenged by a group giving advice to a Kurdish terrorist group in Turkey in order to convince them to take up a non-violent struggle.  The FBI threatened them with 15 years in prison for doing this so they took it to court and won.  However the Federal Government is appealing this ruling.   If the appeal is upheld then the work I'm doing may land me in FEDERAL PRISON because I with to establish a program (through an NGO or a government) to create dialog with Islamic extremists around the world.  (If anyone's interested I can provide links...it was on Reuters not too long ago).

That would force me to leave my beloved country.  Not in a million years could I have dreamt that this could happen here in America.  

This same type of suppression of beliefs and political ideology could easily be turned against conservatives as well.   Wipe out the liberals and eventually who ever is left will turn upon themselves.

Islamic extremists want to do the same thing... kill all the "unbelievers" which to them means also Muslims who don't interpret the Qu'ran as they do.  They want EVERYONE to think as they do and then they believe they will live in a wonderful Utopia.  

They thought the same thing in Iran.

The suppression of legitimate freedoms to me goes against everything I was brought up to believe that the United States of America represented.  

Don't conservatives believe the same things??

Wake up Republicans.  Look at what Bush is doing to this country and realize that there are better ways of doing things.

I'd take his father, George Bush Sr. in the next election if George Bush Sr. was running against his son as a democrat in this coming election.  

At least Bush Sr. had some wisdom and was much better at diplomacy even if I did disagree with some of his administrations actions (like the Panama invasion).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ralphwiggum 6]

can we please stay on topic about the war we have in Iraq?

edit:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/09/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. Army division taking command of Baghdad in April will be a more mobile, less obtrusive force, tasked with patrolling a larger area with fewer troops, military officials said Monday.

The 1st Cavalry, which takes over authority of Baghdad from the 1st Armored Division on April 15, will rely on armored humvees rather than tanks and fighting vehicles, Col. Mike Formica said Monday.

The 1st Cavalry will have fewer troops, but will be responsible for a wider area than the 1st Armored Division, said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling. The new jurisdiction also covers Baghdad, but extends west and north of the city as well, Hertling said.

[miles teg 1]

Sorry.... but to understand the war in Iraq its important to understand the nature of the Bush administration and of the types of people who elected him into power.

There are also those who think similarly in the military who are running many of the operations there. Some of them are operating on badly used social science methods that takes an oppositional stance to non-Western cultures and that tries to basically make them "more Western". This highly conservative ideology is part of what I was talking about.

So if you want me to stick to Iraq I can talk more about that and the battles in the military between conservatives and liberals. The last 60 minutes show on Iraq inadvertently depicted this when they were showing the different viewpoints of different soldiers in Iraq, that seemed to vary depending on how closely they worked with Iraqis.

But I seriously doubt the Pentagon has done any type of study to see which soldiers "get it" and know how to deal with problems there and which soldiers don't. One problem is that the higher up the chain of command you go, often the more disassociated with reality they get due to the fact that they are usually too busy planning and are operating on their analytical framework that is based on what they have experienced...which may be much less then what some Private dealing daily with common Iraqis may have experienced. Theoretically all that intelligence info should be going up the chain of command. The problem is that at each stage info is filtered out or may be thrown out. Plus a commander may have information overload and so he'll throw out what doesn't agree with and only read and internalize what he agrees with.

If you have no oversight of this kind of system, you have what is happening now in Iraq, with basically different unit commanders doing their own things...some successful, some not so successful.

There is also a severe lack of independent investigation of war crimes and accidents with the military going into CYA (cover your ass) mode full-time in order to shirk responsibility for crimes and accidents except for a few exceptions.

Those who are investigating often don't even bother to get the Iraq view on incidents it seems. But the situation may be more complicated then what I paint it as being. So there may be more issues that are causing these problems which is why the military needs to get serious about these things and have some independent groups conducting studies of the problems American and allied troops are facing in Iraq.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Regarding JP226's behavior.  It is typical of the behavior of many of conservatives.   Because they can not win a debate with factual information, they instead resort to using emotional tactics to incite people's anger and to characterize their political opponents as naive hypocrits by bringing up issues of the past that have little or nothing to do with the present issues.   For example he criticizes France despite the fact that a very LARGE miniority here in America oppose his views and those of the Bush administration.  

He calls it "Bush bashing" as if nobody ever did that to Clinton, the so called "Flaming Liberal" and the pinnacle of liberal ideology (even though actually Clinton's policies showed him to be fairly conservative on many issues).

So basically in political debate, you can tell when someone has run out of intelligent arguements when they start doing nothing but insulting their opponent and trying to tear apart their opponent's character.

<snipped for length>

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Substitute "left or right wing idealogue" for "conservative" and you have it. These kinds of tactics are just as prevalent on the extreme left as they are on the far right, it's just that now we have the Bush Administration instead of Marx's personality cult.

[walker 0]

Hi all

And so the defences of TBA and TBA2 to the charges of failing their respective countries at a time of war are revealed.

TBA says, "We still might find the WMD! Let us wait till after the election. And anyway we never said Sadam was an immediate threat but he could have beeen a threat if he biult some WMD again. Besides he was a bad man and were worth killing 600 plus coalition and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis including inocent women and children, wounding thousands on both sides and totaly destroying a country to remove him."

TBA2 says, "We thought he had weapons he could hit us with. We didnt hear the bit where the weapon's we thought he might have were only grenades and short range shells."

Sad for democracy Walker

[miles teg 1]

@ Feb. 09 2004,19:12)]

Regarding JP226's behavior.  It is typical of the behavior of many of conservatives.   Because they can not win a debate with factual information, they instead resort to using emotional tactics to incite people's anger and to characterize their political opponents as naive hypocrits by bringing up issues of the past that have little or nothing to do with the present issues.   For example he criticizes France despite the fact that a very LARGE miniority here in America oppose his views and those of the Bush administration.  

He calls it "Bush bashing" as if nobody ever did that to Clinton, the so called "Flaming Liberal" and the pinnacle of liberal ideology (even though actually Clinton's policies showed him to be fairly conservative on many issues).

So basically in political debate, you can tell when someone has run out of intelligent arguements when they start doing nothing but insulting their opponent and trying to tear apart their opponent's character.

<snipped for length>

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Substitute "left or right wing idealogue" for "conservative" and you have it. These kinds of tactics are just as prevalent on the extreme left as they are on the far right, it's just that now we have the Bush Administration instead of Marx's personality cult.

You are right Tex.   Extremists of any ideologies are in my mind "conservatives" by which I mean narrow in their thinking and with their minds closed to other views and ideas that conflict with their belief system be it ideology, religion, or tradition.  

However, there are very few hardcore Marxists in America.  Those that we have are generally not taken very seriously.  In other words liberals in this country do NOT pose some sort of communist threat as many right wing conservatives like to believe.  

I could more pursuasively argue that extreme right-wing militia groups pose a FAR FAR greater threat to national security then any group of tree-hugging, pot-smoking, anti-war demonstrators. If you don't believe all you gotta do is go to a local anti-war protest or meeting and sit and listen to the group and get to know the members. You'll find out really quick that with the exception of maybe one or two strange people, that most of them are pretty normal folk that don't have some sinister agenda like the right-wing of America like to scare people into believing.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

Regarding JP226's behavior.  It is typical of the behavior of many of conservatives.   Because they can not win a debate with factual information, they instead resort to using emotional tactics to incite people's anger and to characterize their political opponents as naive hypocrits by bringing up issues of the past that have little or nothing to do with the present issues.

Woah there, sir....I ask you to think about that statement for a second.

I'm a conservative, and I was all for this war back when it started, but I willingly and readily concede that it's been FUBAR'd and is looking extremely sketchy.  

You have no idea how many times I've seen statements like that made against conservatives at large, and I find it ironic that you then portray us as naive hypocrites - the very thing you're talking about in that statement is exactly what you're doing by saying it.

But whatever - they're just words, after all.  The point I want to make is that both sides of these arguments generalize the opposition far too much.  It is quite possible to be a conservative and a Republican and be very skeptical of the way things have been and are currently going.  I'm also sure it is possible to be a liberal and not be a a nutjob pot-smoking treehugger [<--- example].

JP226 happens to be one of the people you're talking about, that much is clear, and I'm not defending this guy who obviously has no idea what the hell he's talking about.  

To be brief, his views aren't indicative of the way the rest of us conservatives think, and not all of us are corporate lapdog lackeys under the control of our Neo-conservative masters.

Politicians on both sides of the spectrum are just as laughable, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

So to sort of keep this on topic, I agree that our case for going to war is almost nonexsistant months after the commencement of hostilities.

I rule out the theory that Dubya is "finishing off" Hussein because of what happened the first time, and I really don't think he went charging in there for the oil, it would be far too obvious to the public to get away with.

So, I don't think this was deliberate on POTUS's part (you can use the "he's too dumb to cook up a plot like this" argument if you want. )  I doubt Bush is sitting in the Oval Office thinking up ways to f*ck over the world, and more importantly, his own people.  So....who did?  

Evidence that it was deliberate is nothing short of overwhelming, and from the looks of the stuff you guys have been digging up as sources, some shady characters within the administration are behind this but are so far dodging the spotlight.

Any theories?

*I bet it was that damn Dick Cheney....seriously, I've never trusted that guy *

*EDIT2*

Now, I admit I believed all the stuff that Powell presented, and therein lies the problem. Ideally, all that would have been true and THEN we go in and kick Saddam's ass, but it wasn't true, from the looks of things.

Did Bush know it was distorted intel? I don't think so. He doesn't strike me as the type since he really seems to believe in the legitimacy of what he's doing. I think it's more possible that those shady characters pulled the proverbial wool over his eyes too.

I may be wrong, but it's a theory - whaddya make of it?

[Balschoiw 0]

The war between hostile Iraqis and American troops goes on in ways that are little reported. For example, every attack on American troops is carefully studied and US tactics and procedures modified if it appears that there was a change that could have prevented the attack. For example, when American troops discovered that Iraqis were using radio controlled cars to detonate road side bombs, the lead vehicle in convoys carried a controller for such toys that was continuously broadcasting (all of the these radio controlled toys use the same frequency.) This would detonate any bombs (using this method) when the lead vehicle was still about a hundred meters away. At the same time, specially built electronic gear is being built that will enable the lead vehicle in a convoy to continually transmit all the known frequencies used to detonate bombs remotely.

Meanwhile turkey takes a road that will cause trouble:

Quote[/b] ]On January 14 of this year Turkey's prime minister said that “Iraq's neighbors†won’t allow Iraq to shatter “along ethnic lines.†Turkey would act to stop an independent Kurd state in northern Iraq. This is not a new Turkish fear. For almost two decades “The Kurd War†has flickered in southeastern Turkey. Here’s the direct quote of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: "If Iraq moves toward disintegration, neighbors will get involved. Both Syria and Iran think the same way." The Turkish government has made it plain to the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), to the US, and to the Iraqi Governing Council that Turkey won’t permit an independent Kurdistan. That suggests Turkey would send troops into Iraq, and provoke “a wider war.†Which is why the Baath holdouts and Al Qaeda are trying to provoke the Kurds into opting for independence instead of a federal arrangement in Iraq. The Ansar al-Sunna Army that claimed to have carried out the two suicide bombings February 1 in Iraq’s Kurd areas remains a shadowy outfit. However, 109 Kurds died in the terror attacks in Irbil. The US Army said that Ansar al-Sunna is probably a splinter group of Ansar al-Islam, Al Qaeda’s chief Iraqi connection. The group is also called Jaish Ansar al-Sunna (Army of the Supporters of the Sunna).

Quote[/b] ]So, I don't think this was deliberate on POTUS's part (you can use the "he's too dumb to cook up a plot like this" argument if you want. ) I doubt Bush is sitting in the Oval Office thinking up ways to f*ck over the world, and more importantly, his own people. So....who did?

The whole TBA including GW Bush. He is president. He has to know certain things before he goes to war. If he failed (he obviously did) he and the whole TBA is to be held responsible and judged in front of a court.

The ties of the TBA are not hidden. Cheney maybe the strategical head,, but Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and all the other ones are responsible the same way as they all participated in that deal.

I wouldn´t sweep away the oil claim.It may be obviouse but it´s a plain fact that US oil companies were one of the first ones to benfit from the war, even before the so called "free" Iraqui´s took benefit themselves.

Sometimes the most obviouse things are the last ones to be uncovered.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Woah there, sir....I ask you to think about that statement for a second.

I'm a conservative, and I was all for this war back when it started, but I willingly and readily concede that it's been FUBAR'd and is looking extremely sketchy.

You have no idea how many times I've seen statements like that made against conservatives at large, and I find it ironic that you then portray us as naive hypocrites - the very thing you're talking about in that statement is exactly what you're doing by saying it.

Do'h. You're right. I am overgeneralizing. But also you wouldn't fit my own definition of "conservative" if you are capable of actually thinking for yourself rather then just swallowing everything the government tells you.

Quote[/b] ]

But whatever - they're just words, after all. The point I want to make is that both sides of these arguments generalize the opposition far too much. It is quite possible to be a conservative and a Republican and be very skeptical of the way things have been and are currently going. I'm also sure it is possible to be a liberal and not be a a nutjob pot-smoking treehugger [<--- example].

I agree which is one reason why I used that example of the tree-huggers. What I also meant by that however is that at anti-war gatherings, you do find the stereotypical "neo-hippie" but generally they are heck of a lot more harmless then some of the ultra-right wing nutjobs I've met here in Texas. When Tex brought up the "Marxist" term it reminded me of some of the debates I've had with conservatives who truly believed that communists were stil plotting to take over the United States in the form of the Democratic party.

Myself I'm actually rather conservative on some issues such as gun control and issues regarding gay rights.

Quote[/b] ]

JP226 happens to be one of the people you're talking about, that much is clear, and I'm not defending this guy who obviously has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

To be brief, his views aren't indicative of the way the rest of us conservatives think, and not all of us are corporate lapdog lackeys under the control of our Neo-conservative masters.

Politicians on both sides of the spectrum are just as laughable, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Absolutely. I agree. There are very few who I can truly respect. Most of them these days you can trust only about as far as you can throw them. But politics unfortunately attracts those who want power.

Quote[/b] ]

So to sort of keep this on topic, I agree that our case for going to war is almost nonexsistant months after the commencement of hostilities.

I rule out the theory that Dubya is "finishing off" Hussein because of what happened the first time, and I really don't think he went charging in there for the oil, it would be far too obvious to the public to get away with.

To me its pretty obvious. In fact those "classified" files that 60 minutes broadcasted on national television even showed VERY clearly detailed plans to divide up Iraqi's oil fields. It WAS a smoking gun if I ever saw one. It pretty much confirmed that oil was a primary factor for invading in my mind at least. I could be wrong, but the fact that the Bush administration has such strong ties to the oil industry and the fact that mainly corporations with strong ties to the Republican party recieved most of the contracts for developing the Iraqi oil fields makes this a highly valid arguement.

However these documents seem to have disappeared from the 60 minutes internet broadcast of the show and I'm sure probably disappered from their archives under threat of federal prosecution for spreading classified information to the public.

Quote[/b] ]

So, I don't think this was deliberate on POTUS's part (you can use the "he's too dumb to cook up a plot like this" argument if you want. ) I doubt Bush is sitting in the Oval Office thinking up ways to f*ck over the world, and more importantly, his own people. So....who did?

You're right I think Bush IS too dumb to carry out such plans. However the people around him ARE NOT dumb and are quite brilliant in many regards. I'm actually VERY impressed at the Bush administration's perception management skills.

To me Monica Lewinksy was small potatoes compared to a president that got us caught up in some awful war based on lies and exaggerations and on a HIGHLY DANGEROUS policy of preemptive war. To me it borders on treachery. Yet many Americans see Bush as a hero and a champion of right wing ideologies who will crush the liberal scum of this nation under what many believe is Bush's solid Christian righteousness.

They see him as the brave man willing to do the right thing and not afraid to face the consequences.

So alot about whether a person supports Bush also I think depends heavily on your view of him as a person and whether or not you identify his values with your own and whether or not you trust that Bush actually is acting on those values.

I actually like good Christian values because I've known really good Christians who tried their best to live by Christ's example and who were just really good, compassionate human beings (key word: compassionate).

Bush calls himself compassionate but I've seen little evidence of this in any of his administration's policies.

At any rate I do believe that his administration does sit in the oval office not debating on how to screw people, but how to make money for their corporate associates that will insure a very warm spot in the hearts of industry for themselves and the Republican Party.

Quote[/b] ]

Evidence that it was deliberate is nothing short of overwhelming, and from the looks of the stuff you guys have been digging up as sources, some shady characters within the administration are behind this but are so far dodging the spotlight.

Any theories?

*I bet it was that damn Dick Cheney....seriously, I've never trusted that guy *

Definitely Dick Cheney. Paul O'Neill said some STUNNING things about Bush and his administration and yet astonishingly took back everything he said and apologized completely. I imagine somebody must have scared the living hell out of O'Neill for him to make a 180 degree flip-flop on what he said about the Bush administration on national television.

He basically had portrayed Cheney as a master manipulator of Bush.

Paul Wolfowitz (sp?) is also a key figure who has been campaigning to invade Iraq since the first Bush administration.

However Wolfowitz is one of those rare neo-cons who actually is pretty honest. In interviews he's always been VERY blunt and honest about his views so I have to give him credit for that.

Condoleeza Rice....well Exxon from what I understand, named an oil tanker after her. So that tells you something. To me she just seems to be a very cold person.

As for Powell... I don't know what to make of him. Before he joined the Bush administration he seemed very liberal. If he had ran for President, I would have voted for him instead of Al Gore even if he was running on the Republican ticket.

But now I see him as a "Yes Sir!" man who probably attained his rank in the military for saying "Yes Sir!" to all his superiors.

I'm not sure how he could have gone along with current policies. I think now he's regretting it.

But he's very loyal to his boss so I have to give him that.

Quote[/b] ]

*EDIT2*

Now, I admit I believed all the stuff that Powell presented, and therein lies the problem. Ideally, all that would have been true and THEN we go in and kick Saddam's ass, but it wasn't true, from the looks of things.

Did Bush know it was distorted intel? I don't think so. He doesn't strike me as the type since he really seems to believe in the legitimacy of what he's doing. I think it's more possible that those shady characters pulled the proverbial wool over his eyes too.

I may be wrong, but it's a theory - whaddya make of it?

No, Bush knew almost certainly. In fact Condoleeza Rice was caught in a lie when she said she was not aware of the fraudulent intel report on Iraq's attempt to purchase Uranium.

Joseph Wilson flat out said that he had personally given his report to her and others in the Bush administration BEFORE she made her comments about not knowing that the report was fraudulent. When Bush was asked about her lies, he just answered that America was lucky to have such a loyal servant as she had been serving her country faithfully and he had his full trust and confidence in her. In otherwords he avoided answering the question directly by using the classic strategy (Clinton used it alot) of giving an answer to another question as if he didn't hear the question properly.

Joseph Wilson was, by the way, the guy who's wife the Bush administration exposed as being a CIA operative.

Coincidence? I doubt. Wilson confronted the Bush administration directly and pissed alot of people off when Powell was caught red-handed trying to pass off that fraudulent intelligence as a legit reason to invade Iraq. That's one powerful reason the UN did not trust the Bush administration (or at least they lost what little trust and credibility remained).

So overall I think the whole Bush administration is operating on the same sheet of music and simply doing their best to milk the system for what its worth and to undermine laws and social services that they believe are detrimental to the sprit of rugged American individualism.

I believed that the invasion of Afghanistan was overall done fairly well (initially at least) and that it was essential to do it.

But this war in Iraq to me was a very very poorly justified war that did horrific dammage to our relationships with our allies and I belive only created more terrorism against the United States rather then serving to undermine terrorism.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

Meanwhile ....

Quote[/b] ]M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

In-Depth Coverage

By Jim Mannion

An M1 Abrams tank was disabled in Iraq by a roadside explosion for the first time in an incident that killed two crew members and wounded a third, US military spokesmen said Wednesday.

Little information was available on the extent of damage or the type of explosive device used in the attack late Tuesday about 40 kilometers (25 miles) northeast of the town of Balad.

But it was another sign of the growing effectiveness of the attacks against even the most heavily armored US forces.

"Two soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division were killed and one was wounded when their tank hit an unidentified explosive device," the US military said in a statement.

One of the dead was identified as Sergeant Michael Paul Barrera, 26, of Von Ormy, Texas. He was with the division's 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment.

Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said it was the first time the army's main battle tank had been disabled by a roadside explosion since Iraqi opposition forces have begun targeting US convoys and patrols with so-called improvised explosive devices.

A US defense official, who asked not to be identified, said an improvised explosive device detonated as the tank rolled over it.

The force of the blast caused the behemoth to roll over an embankment, which is what killed and injured those inside, the official said.

The 4th Infantry Division has the latest model of the tank, the M1A2 SEP, which weighs 69.5 tonnes, is armed with a 120mm main cannon and is equipped for digitized communications.

"It is the most heavily equipped, and heavily armored main battle tank that the US has ever put out in the field, and supposedly can protect those inside fairly well," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.Org, a private research group.

"If it is true that a tank was damaged to this sort of extent resulting in fatalities by a simple roadside bomb, depending on whatever size it was, that does not bode well for the future of the occupation," he said.

"That really does prove there is no safe place for American soldiers," he said.

The incident also raises questions for the Stryker, the new wheeled armored vehicle that the army has made the centerpiece of its efforts to make its armored forces lighter and more rapidly deployable.

The Stryker has been scored by critics as too lightly armored to withstand rocket-propelled grenade fire. Its advocates say it makes up for it with advanced communications, greater mobility and precision firepower.

The army plans to deploy its first Stryker brigade to Iraq in the spring.

some explosion eh?

[ralphwiggum 6]

pffft. 10 mines.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Quote[/b] ]There have been 629 confirmed coalition deaths, 535 Americans, 58 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of February 9, 2004. <snip> There also have been 3,000 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon.

the rate seems to be steady at 1 per day. neither good or bad news.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/09/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A 17-page document seized at a suspected al Qaeda safe house in Baghdad appears to have requested the terror network's help in sparking a civil war in Iraq, setting Shiite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, U.S. officials have said.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Monday officials believe the letter was written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed connected to al Qaeda, and meant for Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The document, first reported in The New York Times, takes credit for 25 suicide attacks in Iraq, and says U.S. troops make easy targets.

But the writer states that few Iraqis have been willing to support his fighters beyond offering them refuge and says they will "lose the pretext" for waging attacks if a new Iraqi government takes power as scheduled at the end of June.

Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor said the letter "was clearly intended to be read by senior leadership of al Qaeda outside of Iraq." It asks the intended recipients' help "to bring the Shia into the battle," according to an excerpt published in the Times.

"It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us," it states. "If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis, who are fearful of destruction and death" in a potential civil war.

Dexter Filkins, a New York Times reporter who was given access to the document by the U.S. military, told CNN it was "sort of part business plan and part plea for help."

"Basically, they were saying, 'It's really hard here. We're not getting a lot of support. We think we're losing. Here is this sort of last-ditch plan that we can come up with. Can you help?' "

Quote[/b] ]Filkins, interviewed on CNN's "American Morning," said of the letter: "Assuming it was authentic ... it was a stark admission that things were not going very well for them."

in other words, both sides are shun by Iraqis. Wonder what kind of 'connection' Hussein had with AQ?

[Acecombat 0]

Ok smartass tell me how you drove over 10 mines?

Must be satchels right?

[Longinius 1]

Question:

A while back someone linked to a movie clip about George Bush SR and the company he worked for. I need the name of that company... I tried finding it, but searching for "George Bush SR" in this forum is like looking for a needle in a stack of needles... : )